New Forest Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment, the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them. People were assessed prior to moving to the service to ensure their needs could be met. One staff member sad, “When someone moves into the home, they will have had a comprehensive pre-assessment. When they arrive, we will check their skin, review their eating and drinking and medications for example. We get to know them. We complete the care plans that can affect their safety first. [Registered manager] will talk to us all first about them before they arrive with the main key points.”

Some people and their relatives told us they were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care. Comments included, “I am always involved with [their] care plan; we have meetings on Skype” and “I feel totally involved in [relative’s] care, I know what’s going on, they [staff] update us all the time.” People’s communication methods were outlined within their care plans to enable them to receive care and treatment which worked for them. Care plans we looked at identified any difficulties with communication, such as hearing or speech and gave examples of how people should be communicated with. The care plans were informative and clear.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with current evidence-based good practice and standards. Nationally recognised assessment tools were used. Concerns were escalated quickly and acted on. Support from specialist teams was sought when required.

Nurses used an escalation tool to raise health concerns. This was audited by the provider to monitor effectiveness.

The provider worked across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. A health professional told us that when some duplication had occurred in the past, they had met with the team at the service and the issue was resolved. They said, “We had a meeting about six months ago, with [registered manager]. We wanted there to be oversight of the ward round list to avoid inappropriate referrals and duplication, and it has since got better; we could see improvements almost straight away.”

Another health professional said, “It is always a pleasure when I visit the home, the staff are incredibly approachable and appear to go above and beyond to support their residents and make my visits efficient and valuable. It is a joy to work with them.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice, and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People told us they received support to access healthcare, inside and outside of the service. Comments from people’s relatives included, “[Relative] is so well cared for. It wasn’t good where [name] was before, and [name] lost weight. Now [name] always looks cared for and is putting on weight.”

Although other areas of people’s care were monitored effectively, there were inconsistencies noted in relation to wound care. Although wound care plans were in place, the provider’s wound, bruise, and skin conditions policy was not being followed consistently. This was because wounds were not always being photographed weekly and were not routinely being measured. This meant there was a risk that staff would not be able to easily assess if wounds had improved or deteriorated. This issue was noted by the provider in June 2024 but had not been fully resolved. The clinical manager told us they were aware of the issue and were in the process of embedding best practice with nursing staff.

Despite this, the service worked with other health professionals to provide the best possible care for people. Records showed that advice was sought in a timely manner.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People had been assessed for their capacity to consent to aspects of their care. When people were assessed as lacking capacity, best interest decisions were carried out. These were documented and showed who was involved in the decision making process and how the decision had been reached. People told us, “The staff always ask before they do anything.”

Staff said, “I’ve had training. If someone refused care, we would try coming back at a later stage.” Another staff member said, “I ask [people] first to get their consent. If someone refused personal care but needed it, I would explain why I feel they may benefit from personal care. It would depend on the resident. I may try a different carer, and with people with dementia it can depend a lot on wording.”